Wouldn't you say that is interesting philosophy? — Pop
Whenever there is a new OP, if everyone all agrees to it, or says nothing, then that is not philosophy either. We must see, and discuss the points from all sides of angle. — Corvus

This thread has been unusually calm & rational & broadminded, perhaps because Pop himself is calm & rational & broadminded. However, the philosophical implications of modern Information Theory lie primarily in the general Ontological and Epistemological realms. But this thread has been mostly focused on narrow technical details. Just mention Realism versus Idealism, as in the Antirealism thread, and you'll see a more hotly contested, and interesting, philosophical debate break out. Remember the Chinese curse : "may you have an interesting life". :cool:

What is the source of order in the universe? That which integrates the Universe integrates us! — Pop
It bears resemblance to the idea of the Logos, the Tao, Dharma - a principle of organisation which can only be discerned in its effects, never in its essence. — Wayfarer

I also think of active Information (EnFormAction)in terms of Logos and Tao. It's not a physical thing, but a process of organizing and integrating disparate things into novel holistic systems. It's like a physical Force that we know only from its effects, not from observation of a particular thing. In other words : "creativity".

I just came across a statement in SKEPTIC magazine -- on the topic of a trial & error process that leads to success (e.g. Evolution) -- which, though in a different context, illustrates the relationship between Information, Integration, Organization, and Holism :
"This is an example of a holistic group, integrating diverse knowledge to create more than the sum of individual contributions" --- Trial, Error, and Success ; Sima Dimitrijev ; SKEPTIC v2, no 2

A force is an act or cause, not an object. But Information can be both. As Einstein noted, causal Energy (the push or pull) and passive Mass (the pushee) are interchangeable. Likewise, Information (idea) in a human mind (sculptor) can be translated into a causal creative force (behavior) that results in something new (sculpture). By the same reasoning, Evolution is not a physical object, but a creative action which causes diverse things to integrate into what Darwin called : "endless forms most beautiful". :grin:


Logos :
In Enformationism, it is the driving force of Evolution, Logos is the cause of all organization, and of all meaningful patterns in the world. It’s not a physical force though, but a metaphysical cause that can only be perceived by Reason, not senses or instruments.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

Logos :
Greek term meaning “word”, “reason”, “proportion”. It was used by philosophers in a technical sense to mean a cosmic principle of order and knowledge. In ancient Greek philosophy and theology, Logos was the divine Reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

That is more theology than physics. — Banno

No. It's Epistemology, and Ontology -- hence, appropriate for a Philosophy Forum. Your comments might be more appropriate on a Physics Forum.:smile:

that the information "always" exists entangled in a substance, and so this leads to a monistic understanding. — Pop

Our physical Senses are able to detect Information (meaning) only in its "entangled" or embodied physical form. But human Reason is able to detect Information in metaphysical (disembodied) form (ideas; meanings). Like Energy, Information is always on the move, transforming from one form to another. Likewise, Energy is only detectable by our senses when it is in the form of Matter. For example, Light (photons; EM field) is invisible until it is transformed into some physical substance, such as the visual purple in the eye.

However, since Information/Energy can exist in both forms, physical (actual) and metaphysical (potential), it transcends those dualistic (either-or) categories into the monistic (both-and) class of Universality. :nerd:

What are your thoughts, queries, arguments, definitions, and insights? It would be great to have a general understanding of information on this forum. — Pop

Since Claude Shannon formulated his definition of "Information" as an empty mathematical vessel for carrying meaning from one point to another -- specifically over telephone wires -- its practical utility has been exploited in a thousand ways. It has even transformed the discipline of Physics, from manipulating matter (mechanics, Chemistry, atoms) to manipulating abstract Ideas (relativity, statistics, fields). And IT (information technology) has revolutionized both Science and Philosophy.

Formerly, "Information" was simply loosely defined as "mind stuff", and associated with metaphysical Consciousness, Minds, and Souls. It was the intangible (and passive) stuff that life-risking spies could carry in their minds, or on bits of paper, or on magnetic tape. But now it is known to be an active agent in the real physical world. That's why I coined the neologism "EnFormAction" (EFA) to combine its activity (Energy) with its products (Matter & Mind). Plato's "Forms" were merely abstract Ideas (theoretical designs) that could be trans-formed into the en-formed stuff that our physical senses detect. Forms are merely Potential, but en-formed things are Actual (acted upon). As Pop summarized, "every Thing is information". Yet, every Idea about things, or possible things, is also information.

According to Einstein's definition of Energy (E=MC^2), that immaterial power-to-en-form is what gives physical form to the real stuff (matter) that we interact with in the world. In its dynamic/active form, Energy (EFA) is merely invisible & intangible Potential (a possible but not actual thing). But in its stable/passive form, EFA is the tangible massive matter that we know as Reality. With Einstein's equation in mind -- where C is the speed-limit of light -- I like to think of Matter as slowed-down light vibrations, compressed into the sedate wave-forms we know as physical substance. In other words, as mass-less Light decelerates from its max-velocity in a vacuum, it condenses into various forms of massive Matter. This is an oversimplification of course, but useful as a way to understand the relationship between Light (the essence of Energy) and Matter (the substance of Energy).

But, what about Information as the essence of Mind? If it's true, as Pop says, that "information is everything", as a corollary, we could also say that everything is Mind. For some people that notion makes sense. But for others, it violates the basic premise of secular Materialism. That's because it seems to support the ancient worldview of Panpsychism, and even Pantheism. The latter has been explained in the concept that our Real World is actually an idea in the Mind of God (Idealism). So, I think Shannon, as a pragmatic engineer, would be surprised at the novel forms that have evolved from his revival of a old worn-out word -- for the metaphysical contents of human minds -- applied to the mundane physical problem of traffic jams on phone wires. That technical term has subsequently ramified into an all-encompassing concept of both Reality and Ideality. :nerd:


Everything is Information :
Physicist Vlatko Vedral explains to Aleks Krotoski why he believes the fundamental stuff of the universe is information and how he hopes that one day everything will be explained in this way
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfQ2r0zvyoA

Information is Everything :
We are now living in the information age and physicists are now wondering whether the universe must be seen as a kind of super computer or large information system.
https://hagedoorn.org/en/everything-is-information/

Information :
The English word "Information" apparently derives from the Latin stem (information-) of the nominative (informatio): this noun derives from the verb īnfōrmāre (to inform) in the sense of "to give form to the mind",
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information

Panpsychism is the view that mentality is fundamental and ubiquitous in the natural world. The view has a long and venerable history in philosophical traditions of both East and West, and has recently enjoyed a revival in analytic philosophy. For its proponents panpsychism offers an attractive middle way between physicalism on the one hand and dualism on the other.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/

Pantheism :
At its most general, pantheism may be understood positively as the view that God is identical with the cosmos, the view that there exists nothing which is outside of God, or else negatively as the rejection of any view that considers God as distinct from the universe.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.” ― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

Note : To enform via direct acts is to create or to organize. To enform via natural laws is self-organization or evolution

Absolutely not. Presuppositions that ground what you say and do, and absolute presuppositions that stand in relation to those things as being like axioms. Nothing whatsoever unwarranted or biased about them. — tim wood

I don't mean to harp on one note, but I didn't interpret the topic of this thread as referring to pragmatic mathematical axioms -- that are "rationally adequate for a reflective task". Instead, I thought it was referring to presumptuous beliefs and attitudes. Which implies an unshakable faith in what is True and Real.

Although Kant asserted that ultimate Reality is beyond the scope of human senses, I didn't get the impression that he was being Presumptuous. But merely making an unprovable Supposition for philosophical purposes. We can reason to hypothetical "facts" (conclusions) that we can't actually see or touch. As with Darwin's real-world observations, the "real" evidence may only add-up to a reasonable "theory" much later. Even then, it's "only" a theory, not an observable fact.

Maybe your debate with 180 about seeing a tree is based on presumed meanings applied to different contexts. "I see a tree" versus "I believe there is a tree behind that wall". One statement is grounded in sensory data (real), the other in imagination or memory (ideal). :smile:

Presumptuous :
1. The definition of presumptuous is taking things for granted or being overconfident.
2. (of a person or their behavior) failing to observe the limits of what is permitted or appropriate.

"To my mind, a philosophical expression amounts to a supposition – 'Suppose X, then possibly Y' – that is, a proposal for reflective consideration (e.g. dialectics, gedankenexperiment, daily (fitness / therapeutic) praxis, etc) tested only by its comparatively rational adequacy for some reflective task, and not a proposition asserting what is or not a fact of the matter." — 180 Proof

Absolutely not. Presuppositions that ground what you say and do, and absolute presuppositions that stand in relation to those things as being like axioms. Nothing whatsoever unwarranted or biased about them. — tim wood

Point taken. I may have missed your intention in the OP. Yet, in my experience, the term "presupposition" is typically used as a negative assessment of someone else's unwarranted beliefs. However, in the usage by Christian Apologists, it is intended to imply a positive meaning : faith in the Judeo-Christian God.

However, I suppose the positive or negative inflection is, as usual, in the mind of the Apologist, or Denier for the belief in question.. Anyway, I would tend to use "Axiom" as a more neutral (and scientific) way to label a self-evident assumption that is taken as true, prior to (pre-) empirical evidence. For Christians, the existence of God is axiomatic. Therefore, to me, "absolute presupposition" implies unshakable faith, not subject to counter evidence. Which may also be the case for mathematicians, who believe that mathematical "objects" absolutely exist as metaphysical ideals. :cool:

Do Mathematical Objects Exist? :
I am slowly working on an article for Skeptical Inquirer about the ways in which religious apologists use mathematical arguments in their rhetoric.
https://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2012/10/02/do-mathematical-objects-exist

This thread has strayed from the OP topic of "Presuppositions" --- presumably referring to "unwarranted assumptions" and "biased beliefs" --- into the Epistemological questions of "what can we know, and what can we never know?" But I just came across a relevant description of the "Begging The Question Fallacy" in the current issue of SKEPTIC magazine. Rather than insert my opinion here, I'll just quote a few lines from the article : 25 Fallacies in The Case For Christianity, written by a trial lawyer.

"Begging the question is assuming the very thing you are trying to prove as a premise of your article. . . . A presuppositionalist begins with the assumption that Christianity is true and should be accepted unless definitively proven impossible. . . . . Being a presuppositionalist means never having to admit you're wrong, because you begin with the non-negotiable premise that your are right." ___John Campbell

Fortunately, we don't often encounter that kind of overtly biased argument on this forum. But posters sometimes seem to suspect, and to imply that their opponents are closet preuppositionalists, even for debatable scientific concepts. :cool:


Presuppositionalism meaning ... (theology) A school of Christian apologetics that presumes Christian faith is the only basis for rational thought
https://www.yourdictionary.com/presuppositionalism

In this, knowledge is constrained, bounded by, and limited to what reason can present. — tim wood

Yes. The paradox of human Reason is that it is the mechanism by which we come to know Reality, but it is also the ability to imagine worlds that don't exist in reality. So, it's the job of Philosophy and Science to sort-out the real from the unreal. But, it's a hard job, and there's still a lot of gray area for us to quibble about. :nerd:

Don Hoffman's : Why Evolution Hid the Truth From Our Eyes
From his studies, he has concluded that our sensory perceptions have “almost surely evolved to hide reality. They just report fitness”. Even so, humans have also evolved another form of “perception” that we call “conception”. And that’s where the philosophical debates divide. Via conception, we can imagine things we can’t see, and we sometimes find those subjective “ideals” to be more important than the objectively real objects of the physical realm. That sometimes leads to Faith, in which we “believe in things unseen”.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

That's so. We know that to be the case. But this doesn't mean that there is in all cases something not only outside the scope of our senses, but something we can never know. — Ciceronianus the White

I agree that Nescience is just as rare as Omniscience. So I muddle along somewhere in the middle, consoled by the knowledge than even Socrates admitted that "one thing I know is that I know nothing". But that was an intentionally paradoxical statement.

For Kant to say that, not everything, but merely the ideal ding an sich is unknowable, may sound defeatist to you. But to me, it's a wise form of philosophical humility : to avoid the self-conceit of a know-it-all. For an humble philosopher, most of the universe's potential knowledge is unknown to him. On the other hand, to know that there is much you don't know, leaves you with plenty to explore -- including the notion of Transcendence. :smile:

Socratic paradox :
Socrates begins all wisdom with wondering, thus one must begin with admitting one's ignorance. After all, Socrates' dialectic method of teaching was based on that he as a teacher knew nothing, so he would derive knowledge from his students by dialogue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing

"All knowledge and understanding of the Universe was no more than playing with stones and shells on the seashore of the vast imponderable ocean of truth." — Sir Isaac Newton

"Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp,. Or what's a heaven for?" ___Browning

Epistemology, the philosophical study of the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge.

Transcendence : existence or experience beyond the normal or physical level.
"the possibility of spiritual transcendence in the modern world"
___Oxford

PS__I too, am skeptical of most claims about paranormal knowledge. But to claim that there is nothing "beyond the normal" leaves you open to be blindsided by a Black Swan. :cool:

There certainly are limits to human reason, but to claim the real is forever beyond our knowledge seems, to me, excessive, and unjustified. — Ciceronianus the White

Hence, your negative reaction to the notion of Transcendence. I will agree that denial of the mundane Reality of our direct experience is unjustified. But to deny that there is also something beyond the scope of our senses, is also unreasonable.

For example, scientists today accept many concepts that lie beyond (transcend) our direct knowledge, and must be taken on faith in the experts : String Theory, 11 dimensions, Parallel Universes, etc. I have no experience of such transcendental things, but I don't deny their possibility. I just don't have much use for that kind of transcendence.

However, the general notion of Transcendence, as a philosophical concept, is not a problem for me. And it can make sense of some perennial philosophical mysteries, such as : what existed "before" the Big Bang gave birth to space-time? :nerd:

And just here a mini-lesson in the dangers of reading and relying on secondary sources, and even more on quoting excerpts. — tim wood

Like many philosophers, Kant could be interpreted, and quoted, from both sides of the religion question. Nominally, he was a conventional Lutheran. But some of his ideas would make his fellow Christians uncomfortable. It's true that his Critique of Human Reason, allowed room for Faith. But, he could also be critical of some religious beliefs.

My comment was only intended to show Ciceronianus that his interpretation might be looking only at one side of Kant's religious views : the notion of that which "transcends" reality. Which has been a common view among philosophers for thousands of years. Yet Kant was writing during a revolutionary transition period away from Idealism & Transcendentalism, toward Realism & Mundanism. And philosophical worldviews have swung back & forth since then with each new generation. Personally, I have no problem reconciling both views from the perspective of the BothAnd Principle. So, my worldview is both Ideal and Real, both Transcendental and Mundane. :smile:

PS___Since I have never met Kant, or read his works in the original language, all of my sources are secondary.

Thus Kant demythologizes the Christian doctrine of original sin.
https://iep.utm.edu/kant-rel/

Both/And Principle :
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

We're not outside the world looking in. What we think, what we experience, what we do or don't do, all take place in the world. — Ciceronianus the White

I think you are over-reacting to presumed implications of Kant's Transcendental Idealism, which was not a denial of a real world, or affirmation of a heavenly realm, but a critique of the limits of human Reason. And his Idealism is not necessarily supporting traditional Religious or Spiritualist worldviews, Descartes also seemed to acknowledge our ability to deceive ourselves -- or to be deceived by a hypothetical demon -- about reality, in his "cogito ergo sum" expression : all I know for sure is the contents of my own mind. In that sense, Reality transcends my abbreviated and subjective world model. You may not go so far as Plato, to imagine an Ideal world from which our reasoning abstracts it's own version of Reality. But for scientific purposes, it's necessary to accept the limitations on our ability to know and to model Reality. :cool:

Kant’s Transcendental Idealism :
In the Critique of Pure Reason Kant argues that space and time are merely formal features of how we perceive objects, not things in themselves that exist independently of us, or properties or relations among them. Objects in space and time are said to be “appearances”, and he argues that we know nothing of substance about the things in themselves of which they are appearances. Kant calls this doctrine (or set of doctrines) “transcendental idealism”, and ever since the publication of the first edition of the Critique of Pure Reason in 1781, Kant’s readers have wondered, and debated, what exactly transcendental idealism is, and have developed quite different interpretations. Some, including many of Kant’s contemporaries, interpret transcendental idealism as essentially a form of phenomenalism, similar in some respects to that of Berkeley, while others think that it is not a metaphysical or ontological theory at all. There is probably no major interpretive question in Kant’s philosophy on which there is so little consensus
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-transcendental-idealism/

Kant’s Philosophy of Religion :
Kant has long been seen as hostile to religion. Many of his contemporaries, ranging from his students to the Prussian authorities, saw his Critical project as inimical to traditional Christianity.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-religion/

But to skeptical scientists and philosophers, and some poets, it does make a difference to know what is real and what is illusion. — Gnomon
My response was that my understanding of the claim being made is that we can't know what's real. If that's a misstatement of your position, let me know. — Ciceronianus the White

Do you really know what's real? My position is similar to that of Kant : our senses are probing the presumed reality outside our heads, but the picture we construct from those bits of data is a mind-made (subjective) representation (symbol), not the ultimate (objective) thing, as known to omniscience.

Hoffman is making a similar point, but using the metaphor of symbolic icons on a computer screen (interface). The philosophical problem here is to distinguish between Perception (one person's incomplete view of the world) and Conception (the seemingly complete model of reality constructed from incomplete information).

I am not confident that my world-model is an accurate depiction of Reality. That's one reason I dialog with people on this forum : to compare my subjective model with the variety of models held by other observers of Reality, in order to fill-in the gaps of my worldview. Some think that Matter is the ultimate Reality, while others think it's the immaterial Relations (invisible interconnections -- patterns) between things. "Which is real, and which illusion?" :nerd:

Ding an sich :
(in Kant's philosophy) a thing as it is in itself, not mediated through perception by the senses or conceptualization, and therefore unknowable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing-in-itself

Interface theory of perception :
Now, cognitive scientist Hoffman has produced an updated version of Kant’s controversial Occult Ontology. He uses the modern metaphor of computers that we “interface” (interact) with, as-if the symbolic Icons on the display screen are the actual things we want to act upon. For example, by clicking on a pixelated folder symbol, we emulate the physical act of locating and opening a manila folder with important documents. For our practical needs, such short-cuts are sufficient to get the job done. It’s not necessary for us to be aware of all the intricate details of internal computer processes. From his studies, he has concluded that our sensory perceptions have “almost surely evolved to hide reality. They just report fitness”. Even so, humans have also evolved another form of “perception” that we call “conception”. And that’s where the philosophical debates divide. Via conception, we can imagine things we can’t see, and we sometimes find those subjective “ideals” to be more important than the objectively real objects of the physical realm. That sometimes leads to Faith, in which we “believe in things unseen”.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

Example of incomplete model of reality : people had been seeing real ponds for thousands of years, but Leeuwenhoek's microscope revealed a formerly unseen miniature reality in a drop of pond water. Now, a few centuries later, our microscopes and particle smashers have revealed the almost unreal foundations of reality, in quantum models, not of atoms or sub-atomic particles, but of mathematical "fields" of Virtual or Potential particles. So, when you speak of reality, are you speaking from knowledge of the totality of Reality, or from your own custom-tailored representation of the Universe?


Thirty spokes share the wheel's hub; It is the center hole that makes it useful.
___Lao Tzu
Is the hole real?

Postmodernism announces (loudly and often) that a supposedly neutral, objective rationality is always a construct informed by interests it neither acknowledges nor knows nor can know. — Does Reason Know what it is Missing?

Objectivity may be "honored more in the breach than in the observance". A succinct statement of ancient philosophical wisdom is Socrates' epigram : "know thyself". Which requires enough self-directed insight to "see" your own personal biases and ignorances. Perhaps we could rephrase as : "the fear of self-deception is the beginning of wisdom". :smile:

I wouldn't describe the belief that only the unknowable is real as wisdom. — Ciceronianus the White

Who said it was? What I said was, "A major feature of wisdom is to know what you don't know." Do you disagree with that assertion? The point of wisdom is to be aware of the potential for Black Swans in any risky endeavor. :smile:


Fitch's paradox of knowability is one of the fundamental puzzles of epistemic logic. It provides a challenge to the knowability thesis, which states that every truth is, in principle, knowable. The paradox is that this assumption implies the omniscience principle, which asserts that every truth is known. Essentially, Fitch's paradox asserts that the existence of an unknown truth is unknowable. So if all truths were knowable, it would follow that all truths are in fact known.

The paradox is of concern for verificationist or anti-realist accounts of truth, for which the knowability thesis is very plausible,[1] but the omniscience principle is very implausible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitch%27s_paradox_of_knowability

Unknown unknowns are risks that come from situations that are so unexpected that they would not be considered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_known_knowns

The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable :
the book discusses what can be done regarding “epistemic arrogance”, which occurs whenever people begin to think they know more than they actually do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Swan:_The_Impact_of_the_Highly_Improbable

Black Swan Wisdom :
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2010/12/02/black-swan-wisdom.html

In actual fact, I think his comment was directed at the post he replied to, which I realised after I made that snide remark, which is why I removed it. I know for a fact 180 holds those authors in high regard. — Wayfarer

Yeah. I know. I was just poking fun at his ancient philosophy of "how to drink like a Cynic". :cool:

Yeah, Seneca, Cicero, Aristotle - all hacks. I'm wondering why I bothered posting it. — Wayfarer

Don't let contrarian posts deter you. He's probably been imbibing too much of his namesake beverage. Which makes everything seem pointless. :joke:


Alcohol proof is a measure of the content of ethanol in an alcoholic beverage. The term was originally used in England and was equal to about 1.821 times the percentage alcohol by volume.
180 proof = 100% pure brain cell poison??? :100:

It strikes me that if the "real snake" (or whatever it may be) cannot be known, the mental representation snake is what is of significance to us. It doesn't matter what the "real snake" is, nor does it matter if our snake is a mental representation. — Ciceronianus the White

That description may be true of many people, who accept what they think they see as what is real. But to skeptical scientists and philosophers, and some poets, it does make a difference to know what is real and what is illusion. A major feature of wisdom is to know what you don't know.

That's the philosophical point behind the kick-*ss cover-story of the Matrix movie. Each of us must choose between the red pill of bitter truth, and the comfortable illusion of fake reality. :cool:


Late Lament :
Cold-hearted orb that rules the night
Removes the colours from our sight
Red is grey is yellow white
But we decide which is right
And which is an illusion
___Moody Blues

So a simple fellow like me may be inclined to ask what, if that's the case, they "really" are if they're not a snake and a train, and what the difference is between the snake and the train (or what we only "think" are the snake and the train) and what the snake and train "really" are. If there is a difference, how does that difference affect what we do with what seem to be snakes and trains? — Ciceronianus the White

I haven't seen the article, but I have read the book. So, I'd say that the difference that makes a difference, between imaginary snakes and real snakes, is the practical distinction between Concrete and Abstract. Concrete things have physical properties, such as poison, that can have physical effects, such as death-by-snake-bite. But Abstract things, have their physical properties abstracted (pulled out), so what remains are ethereal meta-physical qualities (MPQ). MPQ are not inherent in snakes, but attributed by the observer. And one of the MPQ of both snakes-in-the-flesh and snakes-in-the-mind is that they can cause the real physical responses we call "fear". You may mistake a garden hose for a snake, but the fear-response will be the same. And some people have dropped dead from fear --- yet the cause was not bio-chemical toxin, but bio-mental shock.

If the mere idea of a snake can kill you, it's not due to what-is, but to what-seems. And what "seems to be" is important to humans, because we are motivated by feelings. Moreover, some of those feelings are pre-suppositions (beliefs) about what's real and/or important. Some of those suppositions are innate (learned by evolution), or empirical (learned by experience), but others may be superstitions (learned by education). But the emotional effect on the believer is real, whether triggered by "what-is" or by "what-seems" (physical or metaphysical). Yet, some of us belittle Meta-physics as not-real, even when such ideas have real-world consequences. For example, world-wars have killed millions for the sake of abstract ideas (Communism vs Capitalism), that are only indirectly connected to the real world. However, going to war over mere ideas may sound silly, so those who want to justify the physical effects of war (carnage) typically look for some real-world event to blame. Even when the "real" motivating reason is an abstraction like "honor", or "freedom", or "country".

The abstract difference that makes a difference is Subjective Meaning. :smile:



https://www.britannica.com/story/can-you-really-be-scared-to-death

"The quote seems to imply that, to reconcile Relativity and Quantum Theory, Plato's Ideal Forms (potential things) should be considered among the "real" things of the world. Hmmmmm." -- Gnomon

↪Gnomon
I wonder if there can be a more compelling example of a difference which makes no difference. — Ciceronianus the White

I'm not sure what your point is -- other than a snarky remark -- but Potential is the difference that makes THE difference between something and nothing. It's what makes thermodynamics dynamic. It's what differentiates positive directional change from random non-directional disorder.

Into The Cool, by Schnieder and Sagan, says "nature abhors a gradient", meaning that any difference attracts change -- it's a hole just begging to be filled ; it's a potential on the verge of actuality ; it's a possibility that "wants" to be realized. :joke:

Into The Cool :
Their central thesis is contained in the striking catchphrase “nature abhors a gradient”; they propose that it is the flow of energy down gradients that is the central driving force that balances the Second Law’s drive toward disorder.
https://ncse.ngo/review-cool

Thermal gradients are caused by differences . . . .
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/thermal-gradient

A voltage gradient is a difference in electrical potential across a distance or space.

Potentiality and Actuality :
Aristotle describes potentiality and actuality, or potency and action, as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist. In a sense, a thing that exists potentially does not exist, but the potential does exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality
Note -- in other words, Potential is essential to Reality

Presuppositions versus Potentialities

Quote from Aristotle and Science thread :
"In [a] paper, three scientists argue that including “potential” things on the list of “real” things can avoid the counterintuitive conundrums that quantum physics poses."
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11494/aristotle-and-science


The quote seems to imply that, to reconcile Relativity and Quantum Theory, Plato's Ideal Forms (potential things) should be considered among the "real" things of the world. Hmmmmm. :chin:

↪Gnomon
Well, you've not challenged me on a substantive basis, so there's that. — 180 Proof

Touche! You've made it murkily clear that, for you, there is no "substantive basis" for any ideas that don't fit into your subjective view of objectivity. Touche! :joke:

What does he think is difference between the reality "out there" and the ideas about reality "in here"? If he says the difference is that one is "out there" and the other "in here" I'm not sure he says anything of note, so assume he says something else. — Ciceronianus the White

Yes. Hoffman is saying something much more significant and revealing than "subjective is not objective". :smile:

The Case Against Reality :
A professor of cognitive science argues that the world is nothing like the one we experience through our senses.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/

Reality is not what you see :
In his doctrine of Transcendental Idealism, 18th century philosopher, Immanuel Kant argued that our perception of reality is limited to constructs created in our own minds to represent the invisible and intangible ultimate reality that he mysteriously labeled “ding an sich” [things-in-essence, as opposed to things-as-we-know-them]. In other words, what we think we see, is not absolute reality but our own ideas about reality.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

Hoffman's quasi-Kantianism is contra-Platonic. — 180 Proof

Quasi- and Contra- are in the eye of the beholder. maybe what you mean is contra-180proof. I would call Hoffman's analogy of concepts with computer icons to be an update of both Kant and Plato.

By "anti-realist" I understand subject-dependency (i.e. conflation of ideas (maps) with facts (territory)) that is disputed by the Private Language argument and self-refuting Protagorean relativism. — 180 Proof

Unfortunately, your Ideal "Realist" world would be a world without Homo Sapiens -- a world without Selves -- just TV cameras recording reality without meaning.

... ^ideas are "mental-constructs"; knowledge is more than it's constituent ideas. — 180 Proof

Is that another "truism", or merely an opinion? If your worldview is holistic, then everything that is not simplistic and reductive is more than its constituents. Sounds like we agree on something. But I'm not sure what we are disagreeing about. :wink:

Field Guide to The Contrarian :
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/201205/field-guide-the-contrarian

Too many misdirected and rhetorical questions. — 180 Proof

If the questions are misdirected, it's only because the target is fuzzy, or moving around. For example, what do you mean by "idealist (anti-realist, subjectivist) "reasoning"? That's not a rhetorical question. I offered "spiritualism" , but you are welcome to present other examples of "idealist reasoning".

Plato was perhaps the most influential "idealist" reasoner. And Aristotle is noted for trying to make his mentor's ideas more sensible and realistic. But, in fact he also relied on the notion of ideal essences underlying real substances. The point of Idealism is not to be "anti-realist", but to remind us that all of our knowledge of reality is a mental construct. Are you familiar with Donald Hoffman's book : The Case Against Reality? He doesn't deny Reality out there, but merely shows that we only know our ideas about reality, in here. :smile:


Idealism :
In philosophy, idealism is a diverse group of metaphysical views which all assert that "reality" is in some way indistinguishable or inseparable from human perception and/or understanding, that it is in some sense mentally constructed, or that it is otherwise closely connected to ideas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

Why is it said that Plato was an idealist and Aristotle a realist? :
Very briefly, Aristotle was a realist because he believed that "forms" or universals couldn't exist uninstantiated, Plato believed they could.
I think it more proper to say that Plato was a non-dualist, rather than an idealist or even a monist. Also, one should not lose sight of the fact that Aristotle, being a disciple of Plato, was not only an empiricist (at heart or by temperament) but also a metaphysician (e.g. the ‘unmoved mover’). Someone here has drawn the attention on the misleading epithets, realist/idealist.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-said-that-Plato-was-an-idealist-and-Aristotle-a-realist-when-Aristotles-book-Politics-is-called-a-copy-of-Republic
Note -- Again, all I'm saying is that Reality is not really a simple stark Black vs White or True/False duality. That's why I have built my personal philosophy on the BothAnd Principle of Complementarity.

Interface : Window to Reality :
Reality is not what you see
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

I only denigrate idealist (anti-realist, subjectivist) "reasoning" and agree with you that philosophy and science taken together can be quite synergetic. — 180 Proof

That's a neat black & white worldview : " Idealism versus Realism". But is your world really that simplistic, and devoid of ideas about things that could be, but are not? Are pre-suppositions idealistic while post-suppositions are realistic? Aren't hypothetical presuppositions a necessary first step toward empirically "proven" theoretical models of Reality? I doubt that you are really dead-set against human imagination, as a tool for learning. Instead, your dichotomy may be better summarized as Spiritualism versus Materialism. Where would we be now, if Einstein had never imagined himself, counter-factually, riding on a beam of light? ( (rhetorical questions) )

Ironically, Quantum Theory could be interpreted as "anti-realist", in that the ancient search for the reductionist Holy Grail -- the Atom -- has now been reduced to imagining invisible and intangible "fields" of virtual particles. Yet, physicists are prepared to accept that abstract mental model as-if it is real --- just as Spiritualists accept the notion of a ghost as real, even though it is merely the remnant Idea of a formerly living (real) person. When quantum theorist Feynman was challenged to prove that that his models represented true reality, he responded "shut-up and calculate".

All I'm suggesting is that Reality is not that simple. It includes both Things and Ideas-About-Things, both wet Brains and airy Minds. Idealism is merely a philosophical focus on the ideas we conceive about the presumed reality out there, beyond the reach of our physical senses. Unfortunately, some people are so in love with the idea of their ideal realm (e.g. Heaven) that they are willing to have their real bodies burned at the stake rather than recant. That's not Idealism, it's extremism. :cool:


Difference Between Idealism and Realism :
The two concepts can, in layman’s terms, be deemed different in perspectives; with idealism focusing on ‘what could be’, and realism focusing on ‘what actually is.’
http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-idealism-and-realism/

Are quantum fields real, or merely a mathematical tool ? :
The point of all of above is, as far as science goes, what an experimentally established theory says is, for all intents and purposes, the reality.
https://www.quora.com › Are-quantum-fields-real-or-m...
Note -- "for all intents and purposes" means "not really"

Idealism :
Scientific Materialism is the assumption that particle Physics is the foundation of reality, and that our ideas are simply products of material processes. Empirical Idealism doesn't deny the existence of a real world, but reasons that all we can ever know about that hypothetical reality is the mental interpretations of sensory percepts. Platonic Idealism (Myth of the Cave) calls those interpretations illusions, and asserts that true Reality is equivalent to an idea in the mind of God. Enformationism is compatible with both views, depending on your perspective.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

Ideality :
In Plato’s theory of Forms, he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call Reality consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
1. Materialists deny the existence of such immaterial ideals, but recent developments in Quantum theory have forced them to accept the concept of “virtual” particles in a mathematical “field”, that are not real, but only potential, until their unreal state is collapsed into reality by a measurement or observation. To measure is to extract meaning into a mind. [Measure, from L. Mensura, to know; from mens-, mind]
2. Some modern idealists find that scenario to be intriguingly similar to Plato’s notion that ideal Forms can be realized, i.e. meaning extracted, by knowing minds. For the purposes of this blog, “Ideality” refers to an infinite pool of potential (equivalent to a quantum field), of which physical Reality is a small part. .
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

↪Gnomon
Philosophy doesn't "disagree" with science (or history) over "the facts" because science (or history) provides philosophy with "the facts". You and I, however, disagree over whether or not philosophy determines "facts" – I say philosophy doesn't, and only proposes ideas about or interpretations/evalutations of facts (as well as other ideas and interpretations). Only idealists seem to conflate ideas with facts so promiscuously and then leap to the conclusion that "philosophy is a/the science". For me, a realist, philosophy is not theoretical or a science. (Witty). — 180 Proof

No. I actually agree with you, that the job of science is to test & "prove" hypothetical (philosophical) conjectures & factoids, in order to turn them into reliable & settled knowledge that can be used to predict the course of Nature. Unfortunately, scientific "facts", while temporarily "adequate for some particular task", remain subject to change over time. The scientific "facts" of Newton are now referred to as "classical physics", because they have been found to be inadequate at the quantum scale of reality.

So, Scientists "prove" philosophical hypotheses with practical tests, turning some of them into pragmatic theories. But then, Philosophers put some of those useful "facts" under a mental microscope, to discover the logical cracks in the facts. Einstein was a theoretical physicist, which is basically a philosopher who focuses on physics instead of meta-physics. He was once asked, "where is your laboratory?", and simply held up a pencil. By merely using imagination & math, he was able to turn classical physics on its head.

As the quote below asserts, Philosophers study "relations of (metaphysical) ideas", while Scientists study "matters of (physical) fact". When the two professions work together, human understanding progresses. Therefore, I also disagree with your denigration of philosophical reasoning, in that theoretical Philosophy is an integral part of practical Science :nerd:


Factoid : an assumption or speculation that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact.

Facts :
The word “fact” is used in at least two different ways. In the locution “matters of fact”, facts are taken to be what is contingently the case, or that of which we may have empirical or a posteriori knowledge. Thus Hume famously writes at the beginning of Section IV of An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding: “All the objects of human reason or inquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, Relations of Ideas and Matters of Fact”.

Physics Needs Philosophy / Philosophy Needs Physics :
Philosophy has always played an essential role in the development of science, physics in particular, and is likely to continue to do so. ___Carlo Rovelli, theoretical physicist
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-needs-philosophy-philosophy-needs-physics/

Philosophy may be called the "science of sciences" . . . .As a whole, philosophy and the sciences are equal partners assisting creative thought in its explorations to attain generalising truth.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Philosophy_and_Science_what_is_the_connection

↪Gnomon
Philosophers talk about (understanding) ideas and possibilities and scientists talk about (knowing) facts and probabilities, no? The latter propositions and the former suppositions, right? Yeah, in practice there are overlaps but the respective functions (i.e. epistemology & epistemes) are distinction. — 180 Proof

Yes. But, there is a wide range of those uncertain "overlaps" between "known" or "proven" facts, and "received opinions" or "heresies". The Scientific Method is a set of guidelines, intended to prevent scientists from confusing little "F" facts that are "adequate for some particular task", and capital "F" Facts that are True, now & forever, here & there. Philosophers have also devised long lists of Fallacies, to deter them from stumbling into the pitfalls of False Generalization from "known facts".

And yet, both professions still have room for disagreement on "facts" that fall into the gray area, between proven and proposed. Both groups try to walk the chalk line, but all too often stray from the strait & narrow. Which is one reason we have online Philosophical forums, where rational thinkers with slightly different worldviews, can share Facts and Opinions remotely without the danger of throttling each other.

For those of us, who are not omniscient, all our general "facts" are also personal "opinions". In all ages, the list of "proven" scientific facts is contingent upon further evidence, and always subject to change. For example, the Standard Model of Quantum Theory was essentially a contentious quorum consensus, similar to that of the official Catholic Canon of Nicaea -- not a revelation from above. And, many of the "propositions" of that theory would have been preposterous to Isaac Newton, who worried about his own proposition of "spooky action at a distance" : the pull of gravity.

That's why a touch of scientific humility is advisable for those on internet forums who wish to argue fixed facts and potential probabilities. Because Your Facts are pre-suppositions and My Facts are mere opinions. So, I could be wrong . . . . but I doubt it. :grin:

Scientific Humility :
Humility means being open to the possibility of being wrong, being willing to consider other people's ideas and being respectful
https://in-training.org/humility-science-science-always-wins-11239

Science is not about certainty. Science is about finding the most reliable way of thinking at the present level of knowledge.
https://newrepublic.com/article/118655/theoretical-phyisicist-explains-why-science-not-about-certainty

I May Be Wrong but I Doubt It is a memoir by former American professional basketball player Charles Barkley.

Or is it more accurate to say that some people have false beliefs. I wonder if using the word facts here blurs the issue. There have always been people who held false beliefs, assuming them to be facts. — Tom Storm

Yes, but the problem with any true/false dichotomy is "who says", and "whose facts". The current issue of SKEPTIC magazine has a Conspiracy Theory article entitled : "The fringe is mainstream". Professional skeptics have been struggling for almost 60 years to definitively define the Paranormal (weird, but not exactly super-natural), and to draw a line between fringe (presumably false) beliefs, and Normal/True/Mainstream worldviews.

By their own admission, in surveys, millions of Americans believe in "weird things". So, the article concludes, "the reality is clear : when we talk about 'fringe believers', we're actually talking about most people. . . . skeptics are the outliers." Moreover, some modern-day politicians, pointing the finger at "fake news", practice the very false-fact dissemination that they preach against. And are avidly supported by almost half of the US voting population. Obfuscating smoke & mirrors are essential to Magic, and to Advertising, and to Politics, and to Sophistry..

Ironically, most posters on this forum are strongly skeptical about some ideas, and are well-trained in Critical Thinking. And yet, we vociferously disagree on some dearly-held beliefs. And that's not due to ignorance or stupidity, but to the shades of gray surrounding some of the most important philosophical issues --- topics that are still debated after 2500 years of philosophical and scientific analysis. So, it seems to be a Mexican stand-off, between My Truth and Your Falsehood.

That's why I have adopted the BothAnd Principle to monitor my own beliefs, and of those I dialog with on this forum. Belief systems typically have a true/false hard core and maybe-yes/maybe-no soft edges, or fringes. If we disagree about the core issues, there's nothing to be done, except agree to disagree, or to step-off 20 paces. Yet, if we can find some common ground on the mushy-maybe terrain, perhaps both sides will get a little closer to big "T" Truth. :cool:

Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

BothAnd-ism :
An inclusive philosophical perspective that values both Subjective and Objective information; both Feelings and Facts; both Mysteries and Matters-of-fact; both Animal and Human nature. . . . ambiguity as a natural fact of life to be dealt with rationally and pragmatically.

We All Believe in Magic :
The widely spread view on magical beliefs in modern industrial cultures contends that magical beliefs are a bunch of curious phenomena that persist today as an unnecessary addition to a much more important set of rational beliefs. Contrary to this view, in this article, the view is presented, which suggests that the belief in magic is a fundamental property of the human mind. Individuals can consciously consider themselves to be completely rational people and deny that they believe in magic or God despite harboring a subconscious belief in the supernatural. Research also shows how engagement in magical thinking can enhance cognitive functioning, such as creative thinking, perception and memory.
The Belief in Magic in the Age of Science
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2158244014521433

To my mind, a philosophical expression amounts to a supposition – 'Suppose X, then possibly Y' – that is, a proposal for reflective consideration (e.g. dialectics, gedankenexperiment, daily (fitness / therapeutic) praxis, etc) tested only by its comparatively rational adequacy for some reflective task, and not a proposition asserting what is or not a fact of the matter. — 180 Proof

That's why most of the assertions on a philosophy forum should be taken with a grain of salt. Unlike physical scientists, philosophers -- and theoretical scientists -- are not bound by proven physical facts. Instead, they are free to suppose -- to say "what-if, given a few assumptions, X is true?" This is how Einstein discovered the physical implications of living in a relative, rather than an absolute & deterministic, world. Hence, most modern scientific "facts" are relative to a point-of-view or frame-of-reference. And they are provisional, given certain presumed preconditions.

By contrast, many informal philosophical expressions are based on un-stated pre-suppositions (beliefs), in which the conditions & limitations on the truth of the statement are not clearly defined. That's why Voltaire warned that, before making a definitive assertion, "first define your terms". Unfortunately, all too many of those implicit "facts" are only loosely defined -- adequate to a narrow task -- and may be interpreted to suit a presumed inference. Even Skeptics argue from a complex worldview that seems to them to be The Simple Truth. So, it's easy to be skeptical of other people's beliefs (presuppositions), but harder to skeptically dig around in the foundation of your own worldview, for fear of undermining The Truth. :smile:

Suppose :
1. assume that something is the case on the basis of evidence or probability but without proof or certain knowledge.
1a : to lay down tentatively as a hypothesis, assumption, or proposal

False Consensus :
"Everyone tends to assume that most normal, decent, intelligent people believe what we believe.":
SKEPTIC magazine, v26 n2

Or is it? I think the above needs to be qualified and that It is a case of the magic being in the eye of the beholders — Jacob-B

The current issue of SKEPTIC magazine has an article debunking the modern-day belief that Giordano Bruno was a martyr to Science, as opposed to myth-based religion. In fact, his notion of many other inhabited worlds out there, was at the time, not Science but science-fiction, since he had no evidence to support that imaginative scenario. Ironically today, a primary focus of "scientific" off-world exploration is to discover tangible evidence of life on other planets, such as Mars. And the faith that life is ubiquitous & cheap, rather than rare & precious, remains an article of motivating faith in search of facts. Bruno's mistake was not in speculating that stars might be suns with solar systems of their own, but in stubbornly insisting on that 17th century fiction as a matter of faith, for which he was prepared to die.

The same issue recounts a modern-day martyr, who blew himself, and a city block of Nashville, to kingdom come with a fertilizer-filled van. He left behind treatises declaring that his self-martyrdom was grounded in the faith that lizard people were running the country, and the world. As science-fiction, the notion of disguised reptoids taking-over the world might be amusing, as in the TV series "V". But as a belief to sacrifice your life for, it sounds insane to us enlightened skeptics. But the article notes that 12 million Americans believe the government is run by lizard people. Apparently, they don't think of that worldview as magical, but factual. So, it seems that facts are also in the eye of the believer. :gasp:

We are not merely some mammally organic ‘luck’,
But purposely evolved on this planet, near a star,
In that intended long and winding mindless ‘birth’
Of slowly drifting time, dust, and selection by death
That ever sifted the best from the rest: Sapiens! — PoeticUniverse

:up:

We don't know the utter end of this ever-changing cosm,
progressing by degrees from single spark to fathomless abyss,
with sentient eyes always looking up.
But, whatever end we are tending for,
its path has gone through us,
the fittest of the fit, so far. :cool:

Yeah, the consequences of such believe might be very devastating; makes me wonder why such a believe would ever arise under evolutionary constraints. — Daniel

The "belief" that Self is more important than Other seems to be inherent in how sentient beings perceive (awareness) their environment. All of our senses, including the extended sensing of Consciousness, are rooted in the brain & body of the sentient organism. And the primary purpose of sensation is to distinguish Self from Other. Once that dichotomy is established, the next determination is between Food and Self-sustenance. However, that Predator vs Prey relationship can also be reversed, as when the little fish is swallowed by a larger fish. So it's also important for survival to distinguish between Self-interest, and the interest of other Predators & Prey. Yet, it's only natural for personal interests to be most important to the self-centered Self-conscious organism.

Therefore, it seems that a hierarchy of interests is inherent in Darwinian evolution. Survival of the fittest, makes setting priorities paramount for every organism. Each "object" of evolution must value its own interests above those of other "subjects" of the weeding-out process of competitive fitness. Consequently, each organism, or "object", has a mandate to "out-fit" the competition. And humans seem to have taken that imperative to an extreme. Fortunately, we have also learned to moderate our self-aggrandizement to include the interests of Others within our own sphere of interest. That's why super-sentient humans had to develop a more formal cultural sense of communal Morality and inter-personal Ethics, that goes beyond what physical evolution could produce via natural instincts. :nerd:

Super-sentient : human senses have evolved beyond physical senses, to include meta-physical perception of self-other relationships. And that is a primary topic of human Philosophy.

SLIGHTLY OVERLAPPING INTERESTS :

SHARED INTERESTS :

Man, it seems to me, gives itself a special status among existing things; special in the sense that Man thinks Man, somehow, is more particularly unique OR essential (OR divine) compared to other existing things. — Daniel

Any Self has special status in its own eyes. The fat cat purring in your lap may be thinking that you exist only to serve her own needs & purposes. Any organism capable of a self-image would presumably place its own Self at the top of the value scale. Unfortunately, we can't read the minds of all those other self-centered beings. So, we point the finger of blame at the over-weening minds that are capable of expressing their smugness in words as well as deeds.

As a practical limitation, we can't all fit on the peak of a social pyramid. And the consequences of playing the king-of-the-hill game can be devastating to fragile egos. So, at least some introspective humans are acutely aware of the negative social effects of self-aggrandizing Egoism, and have developed counter-weights to selfish behavior. That's the primary purpose of man-made Morality : to round-off the sharp edges of ambitious Selves to make them less dangerous to other Selves.

In George Orwell's Animal Farm, the "pigs" declared that all animals are equal, but some are "more equal" than others. Likewise, in the Human Farm, the homos have proclaimed their kind as "more equal" than all other sentient beings. And buoyed by that inflated self-image, they have proceeded to turn the natural world to their own artificial purposes. Ironically, their almost total dominance of the world's resources, still has at least one nemesis. Invisible and insentient organisms (loosely categorized) continue to terrorize humanity with plagues and pandemics, by merely implacably pursuing their own selfish purposes. Then again, the sapiens continue to assert their divine role as the collective rulers of this world, by creating means of mass-destruction of those pests. So, who's "da man" in this eternal struggle for supremacy? :wink:

History taught us that there was a fatal systemic deficiency within all Communist forms of government. Communist governments' centralized planned economies simply could not produce enough quality goods and services to meet even the basic needs of their citizens/subjects. — charles ferraro

A pragmatic accommodation to that inherent weakness of top-down planned economies may be why China has quickly converted from a purely Socialist economy to a Mixed economy. That switch has allowed them to become an economic powerhouse. But the political ideology is still basically Marxist & Communist, which tends to minimize political independence, and to mandate Unity (collectives, communes), which minimizes Diversity, and suppresses minorities. So, they have adapted to the practical requirements of a complex economy, even as they are reluctant to follow the West into their currently chaotic social systems, pitting individual rights against collective rights, and the few rich against the many poor.

However, I suspect that social unrest will eventually catch up with them. As it already has in Russia, nominally Socialist, but ruled by Oligarchs. Finding the sweet spot between a free economy and an inverted social pyramid, is like walking a tightrope : it helps to have a counter-balancing pole with enough inertia to keep the struggle between left & right from throwing the system off-balance. In the US, the Constitution has so-far provided sufficient moderating stability to keep us from plunging into the safety-net of Left or Right-wing Totalitarianism. But, the tightrope walker is trying to walk a fine line between two kinds of fatal systemic social failure. And is currently recovering its balance from a near fall into National Socialism, with a "free" economy for the rich & powerful, but requiring elimination of de-stabilizing social elements (those who are different). And the wavering goes on . . . . :cool:

Just look in the mirror at the increasing disorder that's organizing you, Gnomon! From what you've written, it appears you profoundly misunderstand (or "metaphysically" deny) entropy. And btw, I'm not a "reductionist". — 180 Proof

Again, you seem to be talking nonsense : "disorder that organizes". That paradoxical notion goes right over my pointy little head. It sounds like the "emptiness of space that is full of energy" in the quote below.

Can you explain "disorder that organizes" in dumbed-down terms for a simpleton like me. I'm sure you know more about such things that I do. However, since I'm neither a physicist nor a mathematician, I am not interested in the narrow technical details of Energy/Entropy. My concern is only in the broad general philosophical implications of such abstruse topics. If I really had a use for the arcane details, I would ask you to teach me.

But I can be satisfied with illustrative metaphors, such as "Entropy is the flip-side of Energy". And although they are discussed as-if they are physical substances, they are more akin to spiritual substances like ectoplasm. In that case, "Entropy is like the ghost of Energy past". Neither is a material substance, but merely a condition, a state -- like before and after. That's why mystified scientists use poetic terms like "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter" and "Dynamic Fluid" as placeholders for real understanding.

Perhaps you are actually being poetic, and ironic, when you speak of "disorder that organizes". Are you just pulling my leg? Are you actually a holist, pretending to be a reductionist? Are you metaphysically equating destructive Entropy with constructive Energy to emphasize the paradox of all change : Life is merely the process of approaching Death. :joke:

Dark Energy, Dark Matter :
"empty space" can possess its own energy. Because this energy is a property of space itself, it would not be diluted as space expands. . . .
The thing that is needed to decide between dark energy possibilities - a property of space, a new dynamic fluid, or a new theory of gravity - is more data, better data.
https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy

“Exergy balance equation” :
There is a direct connection between exergy destruction, entropy generation, and the reference temperature of environment, namely Exd=T0ΔSgen
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/exergy-balance-equation
Note -- the poetic expression of Entropy as-if it is generated as a positive product of expending available Energy (exergy), rather than another step on the slippery slope that leads to the Heat Death of the universe. :cool: .

Energy is the potential for positive change (work, construction, organization)
Entropy is the result of negative change (dissipation, destruction, disorganization)

Nope, just dark energy. Phantom energy is something on top of that, that may or may not exist. Dark energy definitely does. — Pfhorrest

Oh! I thought you were proposing some novel form of energy. :smile:

Instead, the universe seems to be gradually maximizing order and organization. — Gnomon

This makes no sense; in fact, it's contradictory. According to thermodynamics: order is DISorganization ... DISorder is organization. — 180 Proof

I understand that you don't agree with my holistic & positive assessment of the direction of evolution. But how did you come-up with that Big Brother oxymoronic assertion? I assume you are thinking of Entropy as merely a mathematical description of the energy availability in a system. How can you equate "order" with "disorganization"? Is that how the world looks from a reductionist perspective?

In a non-mathematical sense (common sense), meaningful synonyms of Entropy are "disorder" and "disorganization". And in the context of describing the universe as an evolving system, dis-organization is the measurable effect of Entropy. A randomized system is not a system, because it lacks the patterns of organization that constitute a system. Entropy breaks down the order and organization of a functional system. That's why Claude Shannon defined "Information" in terms of Order (certainty ; meaning) versus Entropy (uncertainty ; meaningless). :cool:

Entropy as Disorder: History of a Misconception :
The claim “entropy is analogous to disorder” fails for one additional reason: the word “disorder” is hopelessly vague. Entropy is a precise, measurable quantity.
https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.5126822

Entropy :
1. a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.
"the second law of thermodynamics says that entropy always increases with time"
2. lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.
___Oxford dictionary

Entropy :
In thermodynamics, entropy is often associated with the amount of order or disorder in a thermodynamic system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(order_and_disorder)

Systems Theory :
Some may view the contradiction of reductionism in conventional theory (which has as its subject a single part) as simply an example of changing assumptions. The emphasis with systems theory shifts from parts to the organization of parts, recognizing interactions of the parts as not static and constant but dynamic processes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory

Universe is an organized System :
A system is an entity with interrelated and interdependent parts; it is defined by its boundaries and is more than the sum of its parts (subsystem).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory

Evolution, the argument goes, is a decrease of entropy, because it involves things getting more organized over time, while the second law says that things get more disordered over time. So evolution violates the second law. ...
http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm


“War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.”
― George Orwell, 1984

And so a universe that began as literally just an empty set, a zero, one black pixel, evolved more dimensions, larger dimensions, and more and more complex structure, because that became the best way of increasing entropy. — Pfhorrest

My personal cosmology is just the opposite of maximizing Entropy. Instead, the universe seems to be gradually maximizing order and organization. But, since we are currently at the You Are Here mid-point (in the graphic of my last post about the Big Rip), the amount of order right now is roughly equal to the amount of disorder.

However, if the "black pixel" was programmed to evolve in a positive (relative to humans) manner. That would imply that the original "set" (Singularity) was not "empty", but bursting full of Potential. If so, Evolution could be interpreted as the gradual actualization of that latent constructive Energy. Perhaps the destiny of this experiment in evolution would be something like a second Singularity -- as envisioned by Ray Kurzweil, or by Teilhard deChardin. :yum: